Hey guys,This isn't meant to be insulting, but if there are any Creationists out there, I hope this script will clear some misinterpretations up.

"[evolution is] a scientific theory that explains biological diversity using the mechanism of natural selection; crevolution explains the step-by-step process of how straw-men arose from rocks, using [only] random chance. Further, unlike biological evolution, which simply gives an explanation for the changes in gene frequencies within breeding populations over time in response to changing influences; crevolution is an all encompassing theory that explains how the Universe came into existence, planets formed, life spontaneously evolved from rocks, and eventually achieved its goal of evolving into all [of] the organisms alive on planet Earth today, and especially humans.

Personally, I find it an interesting theory and find it worth examining, even if it's just for s**** and giggles and to point out its obvious flaws. If you're interested, it goes something like this:

According to Crevolution, the whole Universe came into being 18-20 billion years ago, as all of the dust was drawn together into a tiny dot, which was so small as to be non-existent. And then, absolutely nothing exploded from nowhere, resulting in the immediate creation of all the stars and galaxies, and somewhere along the line, a whole load of spinning stuff that immediately coalesced and formed a solar system, and the Earth. ((Cue Kent Hovind - convicted fraudster, on the formation of the Universe))

Next, once the planet Earth had finished forming - which was apparently an abrupt event which happened spontaneously and was judged to be complete once the present continental landmasses were in their current positions - complete with mountains at their current, modern day elevations, rivers at their current, modern day paths, and the atmosphere at its current, modern day composition; it began to rain, forming puddles.

Now, on one particular day (generally considered by most scientists ((John Pendleton - scientist/auto mechanic)) to have been a Thursday on the second week of March), there was a *really* big rainstorm with thunder and lightning, and everything; and by absolute, random chance; a bolt of lightning just happened to hit a particular puddle, that - quite improbably - just happened to contain peanut butter; so that the electrical energy transferred into the puddle, spontaneously caused the peanut butter in the puddle to form a modern day, single celled amoeba. ((Cue Chuck Missler - engineer, on the origin of life.))

This event, due to the phenomenal odds against it ever happening at all, only ever happened once and no bolt of lightning has ever before or ever since struck a puddle that just happened to contain peanut butter. Creationists of course dispute this notion, as they've pointed out that when we've tried recreating this amazingly improbable event, all they get is steam, a lot of blown fuses, and a strong smell of burnt peanuts. To which a great many scientists have responded by saying that they're obviously doing it wrong. Presumably hoping that the Creationist researchers might just weed the stupid genes out of the stupid gene pool by repeating this experiment - by climbing into the bath first, before dropping the toaster in; because it is widely accepted that all scientists hate Christians and are evil, because they hate God.

Now fortunately, before life formed on the planet, it just so happens that that particular puddle didn't dry up and somehow the descendants of that first amoeba somehow found their way into a river and then into the sea, which is where things start to really get interesting (but not right away). You see, nothing else interesting happened for another few billion years, unless, of course, you consider amoebas splitting in half to be interesting, in which case that few billion years would be non-stop entertainment, until one day, which is generally considered by most scientists ((Eric Hovind - graduated from a Bible college)) to be a Tuesday in September; one of the amoebas decided that it wanted to evolve into something that would one day be called a human. And so, [it] devised a [cunning] plan that involved splitting in two, but keeping the two resulting cells together, to form the world's first multi-cellular organism.

Now, some of the other amoebas heard about this and they thought it was a really good idea, and so they rearranged their DNA so that they could produce multicellular organisms as well. You see the fact that this could have happened by random mutation is completely ridiculous, because everyone knows that mutations are bad - even if on occasion they produce superpowers, like telepathy, super strength, and the ability to shoot laser beams out of your eyes.

However, scientists forget that amoebas - like other single celled organisms - have the ability to rearrange the sequence of their own DNA at their will when they decide to make certain things happen, because random chance is just too random. Let's listen to an expert explain the whole proces... ((Cue Ian Juby who has a MENSA card, so we all know that he is an expert at everything.))

Anyhow, once amoebas had worked out how to make multicellular organisms there was no stopping them! Some of these multicellular organisms decided that they wanted to take it further, and work on evolving into plants; while others decided that they wanted to work on evolving into animals. However, scientists have absolutely no idea why some amoebas decided to stay as amoebas, which is why we just happen to have amoebas today. It was [also] around about this time that one of these organisms - completely by luck - just happened to come up with a design for the eye. This was considered to be such a good idea, that it was widely copied, and before you knew it; almost everything had eyes, apart from the amoebas who had been stubborn about staying as amoebas, and the organisms that were working on being plants, who had decided that they didn't need them because they didn't intend to move around much, as would being stuck in the same place all the time; the view would eventually get boring.

Anyway - quite unexpectedly - , there was a sudden explosion of new and various species, during a period of time called the Cambrian, which is commonly accepted by most scientists ((Cue George W. Bush)) as being a Saturday afternoon in late June and not, as is commonly believed, as period of history that lasted for about 55 million years."

Please see the full video that is linked, and clear up any misconceptions. Because, Creationists, you are correct the theory of Crevolution (not sure why you miss out the "cr" at the beginning though) is complete nonsense. ;D

At 9/7/2013 10:54:52 AM, MysticEgg wrote:Hey guys,This isn't meant to be insulting, but if there are any Creationists out there, I hope this script will clear some misinterpretations up.

"[evolution is] a scientific theory that explains biological diversity using the mechanism of natural selection; crevolution explains the step-by-step process of how straw-men arose from rocks, using [only] random chance. Further, unlike biological evolution, which simply gives an explanation for the changes in gene frequencies within breeding populations over time in response to changing influences; crevolution is an all encompassing theory that explains how the Universe came into existence, planets formed, life spontaneously evolved from rocks, and eventually achieved its goal of evolving into all [of] the organisms alive on planet Earth today, and especially humans.

Ok we get that you class evolution as a separate "theory" than abiogenesis, the big bang, etc., but you're just quibbling over unimportant and irrelevant distinctions. Our point is that there is an over-arching belief that atheists hold, that is also in textbooks and taught in schools. That belief is that life began as a natural chemical reaction of some sort, then became more diverse through micro-evolution, which leads to macro-evolution, which gives us the biological diversity that we find today. Going back even further, there is also an attempt to explain the origin of the universe, planetary and stellar formation, and chemical evolution, through naturalistic processes.

Do atheists believe that God could have created life, then used evolution for diversity?? My guess is, if they are being honest, no they don't give that theory any credibility. Being that the majority of scientists claim to be atheists, do these scientists believe anything other than a naturalistic explanation exists for our origins?? Again, no. Is this over-arching theory of the origin and diversification of biological life, taught to kids in a way that is meant to give any credibility to the possibility of Divine Creation, followed by evolution?? No, in fact there are many watchdog groups, the NCSE, the FFRC, the ACLU, that will fight tooth-and-nail in court to make sure that no hint of creation theory gets into the curriculum.

If your point is to show that technically, evolution is a separate "theory" from origin of life theories, theories of the origin of the universe, etc., fine and we already understand that, but making that distinction changes nothing. Evolution without abiogenesis makes no sense and loses a great deal of credibility when taught without a theory to explain how life could have started through natural processes, before evolving, therefore they are taught together. Those theories make no sense without a theory about how the universe and planets could have formed, through natural processes, and no religion that I know of teaches anything that is compatible with any of these explanations. So these attempts to explain everything about our origins, through natural means, is all taught as scientific "theory", since this is their best guess. It's all taught as a package deal.

So, the big question is, what are we wrong about?? If you object to our use of the word evolution when referring to the package deal, then what would you propose that we call it that would be immediately recognizable, and doesn't require listing each separate "theory"??

At 9/9/2013 8:55:12 PM, medic0506 wrote:So, the big question is, what are we wrong about?? If you object to our use of the word evolution when referring to the package deal, then what would you propose that we call it that would be immediately recognizable, and doesn't require listing each separate "theory"??

At 9/7/2013 10:54:52 AM, MysticEgg wrote:Hey guys,This isn't meant to be insulting, but if there are any Creationists out there, I hope this script will clear some misinterpretations up.

"[evolution is] a scientific theory that explains biological diversity using the mechanism of natural selection; crevolution explains the step-by-step process of how straw-men arose from rocks, using [only] random chance. Further, unlike biological evolution, which simply gives an explanation for the changes in gene frequencies within breeding populations over time in response to changing influences; crevolution is an all encompassing theory that explains how the Universe came into existence, planets formed, life spontaneously evolved from rocks, and eventually achieved its goal of evolving into all [of] the organisms alive on planet Earth today, and especially humans.

Ok we get that you class evolution as a separate "theory" than abiogenesis, the big bang, etc., but you're just quibbling over unimportant and irrelevant distinctions. Our point is that there is an over-arching belief that atheists hold, that is also in textbooks and taught in schools. That belief is that life began as a natural chemical reaction of some sort, then became more diverse through micro-evolution, which leads to macro-evolution, which gives us the biological diversity that we find today. Going back even further, there is also an attempt to explain the origin of the universe, planetary and stellar formation, and chemical evolution, through naturalistic processes.

Do atheists believe that God could have created life, then used evolution for diversity?? My guess is, if they are being honest, no they don't give that theory any credibility. Being that the majority of scientists claim to be atheists, do these scientists believe anything other than a naturalistic explanation exists for our origins?? Again, no. Is this over-arching theory of the origin and diversification of biological life, taught to kids in a way that is meant to give any credibility to the possibility of Divine Creation, followed by evolution?? No, in fact there are many watchdog groups, the NCSE, the FFRC, the ACLU, that will fight tooth-and-nail in court to make sure that no hint of creation theory gets into the curriculum.

If your point is to show that technically, evolution is a separate "theory" from origin of life theories, theories of the origin of the universe, etc., fine and we already understand that, but making that distinction changes nothing. Evolution without abiogenesis makes no sense and loses a great deal of credibility when taught without a theory to explain how life could have started through natural processes, before evolving, therefore they are taught together. Those theories make no sense without a theory about how the universe and planets could have formed, through natural processes, and no religion that I know of teaches anything that is compatible with any of these explanations. So these attempts to explain everything about our origins, through natural means, is all taught as scientific "theory", since this is their best guess. It's all taught as a package deal.

So, the big question is, what are we wrong about?? If you object to our use of the word evolution when referring to the package deal, then what would you propose that we call it that would be immediately recognizable, and doesn't require listing each separate "theory"??

There are just too many deliberate instances of misinformation in this post to even start to address, but lets go with "creation theory" aka "religion" aka "goddidit". Yeah lets teach that in science. Well thought out.

At 9/9/2013 8:55:12 PM, medic0506 wrote:So, the big question is, what are we wrong about?? If you object to our use of the word evolution when referring to the package deal, then what would you propose that we call it that would be immediately recognizable, and doesn't require listing each separate "theory"??

Philosophical naturalism.

That sounds like a fair characterization, but I think Eugenie Scott and her goons at the NCSE would have a stroke if they found out that science teachers were actually referring to it in that way.

At 9/9/2013 11:07:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:That sounds like a fair characterization, but I think Eugenie Scott and her goons at the NCSE would have a stroke if they found out that science teachers were actually referring to it in that way.

The teachers wouldn't refer to it that way, because that's not what they teach. You seem to think unless we make specific reference to supernatural entities then it is a de facto endorsement of philosophical naturalism. This is not true.

At 9/9/2013 11:07:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:That sounds like a fair characterization, but I think Eugenie Scott and her goons at the NCSE would have a stroke if they found out that science teachers were actually referring to it in that way.

The teachers wouldn't refer to it that way, because that's not what they teach. You seem to think unless we make specific reference to supernatural entities then it is a de facto endorsement of philosophical naturalism. This is not true.

The admission that it amounts to a philosophical viewpoint, yet is taught under the guise of science and to the exclusion of other philosophies, even to the point of filing lawsuits to make sure that it is taught exclusively, is proof positive of the intent to be an endorsement.

You have made our point for us, but trying to say that it isn't a de facto endorsement is as silly as trying to say that you teach something but don't expect kids to believe it.

I won't respond to any of your comments unless we have a debate on them. I won't debate in the forums section, for obvious reasons. So I'm still here - I've not hidden away or anything. But if you want to discuss this with *me*, then you'll have to debate me on it.Just sayin'.

At 9/9/2013 11:07:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:That sounds like a fair characterization, but I think Eugenie Scott and her goons at the NCSE would have a stroke if they found out that science teachers were actually referring to it in that way.

The teachers wouldn't refer to it that way, because that's not what they teach. You seem to think unless we make specific reference to supernatural entities then it is a de facto endorsement of philosophical naturalism. This is not true.

The admission that it amounts to a philosophical viewpoint, yet is taught under the guise of science and to the exclusion of other philosophies, even to the point of filing lawsuits to make sure that it is taught exclusively, is proof positive of the intent to be an endorsement.

*sigh*

This conversation might proceed better if you read what I've actually written, instead of what you want to read.

POLARIS: "...that is not what is being taught."

Repetition aids comprehension:

that is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taught

Philosophical Naturalism is not being taught. Are we clear on this point, before you continue as if I had agreed with you despite saying the exact opposite? One more time: Philosophical Naturalism is not being taught.

You have made our point for us, but trying to say that it isn't a de facto endorsement is as silly as trying to say that you teach something but don't expect kids to believe it.

Philosophical naturalism is the precept that only natural forces exist.

At 9/9/2013 11:07:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:That sounds like a fair characterization, but I think Eugenie Scott and her goons at the NCSE would have a stroke if they found out that science teachers were actually referring to it in that way.

The teachers wouldn't refer to it that way, because that's not what they teach. You seem to think unless we make specific reference to supernatural entities then it is a de facto endorsement of philosophical naturalism. This is not true.

The admission that it amounts to a philosophical viewpoint, yet is taught under the guise of science and to the exclusion of other philosophies, even to the point of filing lawsuits to make sure that it is taught exclusively, is proof positive of the intent to be an endorsement.

*sigh*

This conversation might proceed better if you read what I've actually written, instead of what you want to read.

POLARIS: "...that is not what is being taught."

Repetition aids comprehension:

that is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taughtthat is not what is being taught

Philosophical Naturalism is not being taught. Are we clear on this point, before you continue as if I had agreed with you despite saying the exact opposite? One more time: Philosophical Naturalism is not being taught.

You have made our point for us, but trying to say that it isn't a de facto endorsement is as silly as trying to say that you teach something but don't expect kids to believe it.

Philosophical naturalism is the precept that only natural forces exist.

What is being taught is that there are natural forces that exist.

Notice the difference.

When asked how we should refer to what is being taught, your response was "philosophical naturalism". Then you turn around and say that is ISN'T being taught. So, what is being taught is philosophical naturalism, but that is not what is being taught. I'm sorry but you do have me confused here, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

At 9/10/2013 12:39:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:When asked how we should refer to what is being taught, your response was "philosophical naturalism". Then you turn around and say that is ISN'T being taught. So, what is being taught is philosophical naturalism, but that is not what is being taught. I'm sorry but you do have me confused here, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Your question as I understood it was what we should call this "package deal" that you dispute. If you're looking for a single label to attribute to Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, there isn't one. They are different theories that cover different branches of science. The only real commonality is that they are all scientific theories concerning origins that creationists dispute. You may call them "origins science" but that entails more than just these three theories (or hypotheses in the case of abiogenesis).

At 9/10/2013 12:39:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:When asked how we should refer to what is being taught, your response was "philosophical naturalism". Then you turn around and say that is ISN'T being taught. So, what is being taught is philosophical naturalism, but that is not what is being taught. I'm sorry but you do have me confused here, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Your question as I understood it was what we should call this "package deal" that you dispute. If you're looking for a single label to attribute to Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, there isn't one. They are different theories that cover different branches of science. The only real commonality is that they are all scientific theories concerning origins that creationists dispute. You may call them "origins science" but that entails more than just these three theories (or hypotheses in the case of abiogenesis).

I agree, there isn't an all-encompassing label that everyone would agree on, but that doesn't change the fact that the package deal is indeed what is being taught. That's why creationists refer to it as evolution. It's a name that is readily recognizable by everyone, and if they're being honest, atheists would agree that the package deal is what they accept as the explanation for our origins. It isn't that creationists don't understand the fact that there are different theories that make up the package, which seems to be what people tend to think, and what the video implies.

At 9/10/2013 12:39:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:When asked how we should refer to what is being taught, your response was "philosophical naturalism". Then you turn around and say that is ISN'T being taught. So, what is being taught is philosophical naturalism, but that is not what is being taught. I'm sorry but you do have me confused here, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Your question as I understood it was what we should call this "package deal" that you dispute. If you're looking for a single label to attribute to Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, there isn't one. They are different theories that cover different branches of science. The only real commonality is that they are all scientific theories concerning origins that creationists dispute. You may call them "origins science" but that entails more than just these three theories (or hypotheses in the case of abiogenesis).

I agree, there isn't an all-encompassing label that everyone would agree on, but that doesn't change the fact that the package deal is indeed what is being taught.

Abiogenesis isn't being taught to my knowledge. Not in public schools.

That's why creationists refer to it as evolution. It's a name that is readily recognizable by everyone, and if they're being honest, atheists would agree that the package deal is what they accept as the explanation for our origins. It isn't that creationists don't understand the fact that there are different theories that make up the package, which seems to be what people tend to think, and what the video implies.

Perhaps in some cases evolution is used as a catch-all for the sake of convenience, but I've also been in many discussions where abiogenesis was the only matter of dispute and it was still routinely called "evolution". So there are a number of creationists who truly don't know the difference.

At 9/10/2013 12:39:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:When asked how we should refer to what is being taught, your response was "philosophical naturalism". Then you turn around and say that is ISN'T being taught. So, what is being taught is philosophical naturalism, but that is not what is being taught. I'm sorry but you do have me confused here, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Your question as I understood it was what we should call this "package deal" that you dispute. If you're looking for a single label to attribute to Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, there isn't one. They are different theories that cover different branches of science. The only real commonality is that they are all scientific theories concerning origins that creationists dispute. You may call them "origins science" but that entails more than just these three theories (or hypotheses in the case of abiogenesis).

I agree, there isn't an all-encompassing label that everyone would agree on, but that doesn't change the fact that the package deal is indeed what is being taught.

Abiogenesis isn't being taught to my knowledge. Not in public schools.

They may not use the word "abiogenesis", but that life formed by natural processes is being taught. I have the McDougall Littell Biology textbook that is widely used in our state. It has a section focusing on the origin of life, and they definitely mean for kids to understand it as a natural process.

That's why creationists refer to it as evolution. It's a name that is readily recognizable by everyone, and if they're being honest, atheists would agree that the package deal is what they accept as the explanation for our origins. It isn't that creationists don't understand the fact that there are different theories that make up the package, which seems to be what people tend to think, and what the video implies.

Perhaps in some cases evolution is used as a catch-all for the sake of convenience, but I've also been in many discussions where abiogenesis was the only matter of dispute and it was still routinely called "evolution". So there are a number of creationists who truly don't know the difference.

I think most creationists view it the same way I do, that is that evolutionists want to exclude origin of life from the discussion because they know it's a weakness in their belief system. Take someone like Kent Hovind, like him or not, he worked as a science teacher and has a college education. Do you really think he doesn't understand that the theory of evolution, and origin of life theories are technically separate scientific theories?? I really find that difficult to believe. Most of us just think that they are quibbling over minute distinctions in order to avoid the fact that if you can't show what we evolved from, it's difficult to say with any credibility that we all had a common ancestor.

At 9/10/2013 3:46:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:They may not use the word "abiogenesis", but that life formed by natural processes is being taught. I have the McDougall Littell Biology textbook that is widely used in our state. It has a section focusing on the origin of life, and they definitely mean for kids to understand it as a natural process.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis as this point, I highly doubt it is being taught in public schools, but I am open to being proven wrong.

I think most creationists view it the same way I do, that is that evolutionists want to exclude origin of life from the discussion because they know it's a weakness in their belief system. Take someone like Kent Hovind, like him or not, he worked as a science teacher and has a college education. Do you really think he doesn't understand that the theory of evolution, and origin of life theories are technically separate scientific theories?? I really find that difficult to believe. Most of us just think that they are quibbling over minute distinctions in order to avoid the fact that if you can't show what we evolved from, it's difficult to say with any credibility that we all had a common ancestor.

I would say the average creationist either doesn't understand the distinction or simply doesn't care.

The reason the distinction is important is because evolution, and abiogenesis have different evidences, concern the origin of different things, and have different levels of scientific support. Evolution is a theory, but abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Weaknesses in abiogenesis should not be construed as weaknesses in evolution, which is often what I see. Someone who comes into a subject-matter professing a range of generalizations doesn't come off as a person who has an honest pursuit of truth, but as a person who only wants to reaffirm that which they already believe.

At 9/10/2013 3:46:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:They may not use the word "abiogenesis", but that life formed by natural processes is being taught. I have the McDougall Littell Biology textbook that is widely used in our state. It has a section focusing on the origin of life, and they definitely mean for kids to understand it as a natural process.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis as this point, I highly doubt it is being taught in public schools, but I am open to being proven wrong.

When I was in public high school, they actually told us that abiogenesis had been proven false, dead wrong.

Now they weren't talking about abiogenesis as the origin of life, but rather with regards to spontaneous generation, but that's still the only mention they ever made of abiogenesis.

At 9/10/2013 3:46:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:They may not use the word "abiogenesis", but that life formed by natural processes is being taught. I have the McDougall Littell Biology textbook that is widely used in our state. It has a section focusing on the origin of life, and they definitely mean for kids to understand it as a natural process.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis as this point, I highly doubt it is being taught in public schools, but I am open to being proven wrong.

When I was in public high school, they actually told us that abiogenesis had been proven false, dead wrong.

Now they weren't talking about abiogenesis as the origin of life, but rather with regards to spontaneous generation, but that's still the only mention they ever made of abiogenesis.

Interesting. That is a categorical error I have come across a few times. Classical conceits of spontaneous generation may be regarded as a type of abiogenesis, but one that rarely has nay great import to contemporary understanding of abiogensis.

At 9/10/2013 3:46:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:They may not use the word "abiogenesis", but that life formed by natural processes is being taught. I have the McDougall Littell Biology textbook that is widely used in our state. It has a section focusing on the origin of life, and they definitely mean for kids to understand it as a natural process.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis as this point, I highly doubt it is being taught in public schools, but I am open to being proven wrong.

I think most creationists view it the same way I do, that is that evolutionists want to exclude origin of life from the discussion because they know it's a weakness in their belief system. Take someone like Kent Hovind, like him or not, he worked as a science teacher and has a college education. Do you really think he doesn't understand that the theory of evolution, and origin of life theories are technically separate scientific theories?? I really find that difficult to believe. Most of us just think that they are quibbling over minute distinctions in order to avoid the fact that if you can't show what we evolved from, it's difficult to say with any credibility that we all had a common ancestor.

I would say the average creationist either doesn't understand the distinction or simply doesn't care.

The reason the distinction is important is because evolution, and abiogenesis have different evidences, concern the origin of different things, and have different levels of scientific support. Evolution is a theory, but abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Weaknesses in abiogenesis should not be construed as weaknesses in evolution, which is often what I see. Someone who comes into a subject-matter professing a range of generalizations doesn't come off as a person who has an honest pursuit of truth, but as a person who only wants to reaffirm that which they already believe.

At 9/10/2013 6:44:29 PM, Sitara wrote:It is called theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is nothing more than people who know deep down that God exists, but don't want to accept the Bible. IOW, it's a made up religion that denies Biblical creation, and is usually preached by those who refuse to accept Biblical morality. So the obvious question is...What God do theistic evolutionists honor?? It certainly isn't the God of the Bible.

At 9/10/2013 6:44:29 PM, Sitara wrote:It is called theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is nothing more than people who know deep down that God exists, but don't want to accept the Bible. IOW, it's a made up religion that denies Biblical creation, and is usually preached by those who refuse to accept Biblical morality. So the obvious question is...What God do theistic evolutionists honor?? It certainly isn't the God of the Bible.

It's difficult to ascertain if these textbooks are the rule or the exceptions (or simply outdated textbooks). If Abiogenesis is being taught in public schools or conflated with evolution it is news to me.